Zora

If this is a thread started somewhere else, I missed it. If it is in the wrong forum, feel free to move it.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that libraries must install porno filters, will these filters affect access to II Discussion forums, or Secular Web in general?

Sometimes the language here gets really rough. (This is not a value judgement, just an observation.) Will we be filtered from reaching young people who are questioning their theism? (At least among those who use library computers?) Maybe computer people can enlighten me.

0n0w1c

i think it is safe to assume that II will be filtered.

Jinto

Of course it will. Every conspiracy theorist in the world knows that "porno filters" are really just an excuse to "accidentally" prohibit access to websites promoting non-approved ideologies.

The sad thing is, in this day and age, the conspiracy theorists are probably right.

uhcord

Well, at my school, they have www.infidelguy.com blocked because of "Porn" so it is certianly not out of the question.

Though this site, infidels.org, wasn't blocked. *shrug*

GaryP

This site is not blocked at my school either.

RufusAtticus

What's your reference for this? Last I heard the SCOTUS had overturned "filter-laws" because filters don't work how their supposed to: i.e. they ban non-porn sites too, and requiring libraries to block unobscene material was unconstitutional censorship.

GaryP

Rufus--

I believe it was a ruling by some federal agency which regulates grants to public libraries. The new regulation is that if the library accepts federal money, they must have the filters.

There was an article in my local paper a couple of days ago about our county library losing out on $9000 because they have refused to follow the regulation.

*edit*

I was wrong. It apparently WAS a Supreme Court ruling!

Internet access will remain filter-free at Fairfield County District Library despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday.

Supreme Court judges ruled 6-3 Monday that Congress can force public libraries to equip computers with anti-pornography filters or else lose federal funding.

http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com...ws/534394.html


The ruling is that it doesn't violate the 1st amendment because patrons can ask for it to be turned off.

I'm pleasantly surprised that my library has refused to install the software. I will be looking for indignant letters to the editor soon!

butswana

When this first came up a year or so ago, there were concerns about what the filters missed/allowed. It turns out that some of the bigger filter software makers are christian organizations, and they were coding the filters to catch things other than just porn. Just one more stealth attempt to undermine the country.

Godless Dave

Well as long as the law doesn't stipulate which brand of software to use (which I think wouldn't hold up in court; there was a decision a couple years ago the the EPA can require companies to meet environmental standards, but cannot mandate the mechanisms by which they are met) I hope there are some rational, secular organizations writing filtering software. Hm, sounds like a project for all the unemployed II programmers.

Loren Pechtel

The language here normally isn't a problem. However, we commit a *FAR* worse sin--we promote athiesm. That would get us on most any filter list if we came to their attention. (The filter lists are normally done by fundies.)

Strangely enough, for more than a year China blocked www.infidels.org--but did *NOT* block www.iidb.org. If you're having filter troubles try going directly to the board.